Abstract
In order to evaluate the local residual cancer following breast conservation therapy (BCT) with lumpectomy, we investigated the relationships between residual cancer and age, tumor location, tumor diameter (T), mammography findings, nipple discharge findings, histopathological type, lymphatic and/or vascular invasion by tumor cells, histological grading, histological lymph node metastases (n), and estrogen receptor (ER) status, in 1494 patients with breast cancer that involved diagnostic excisional biopsy. Residual cancers were found in 581 of 1448 (40%) mastectomy specimens, after 46 (3.1%) with multicentricity had been excluded. No correlation was observed between residual cancer and age, histological grading, and ER. However, residual cancer rates were significantly higher in patients with: (1) tumor diameters of 3.1 cm or larger; (2) tumors beneath or in the vicinity of the nippleareola; (3) malignant calcifications noted in mammography findings; (4) serous or bloody nipple discharge, particularly with positive cytologic findings; (5) papillotubular carcinoma diagnosed by biopsy, (6) lymphatic invasion by tumor cells; or (7) a high degree (n≧4) of lymph node metastases. The above seven clinicopathologic factors are thus considered useful prognostic indicators for local recurrence in BCT with lumpectomy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Fukutomi T, Yamamoto H, Nanasawa T, Itabashi M, Ogino H, Tsukiyama I, Hirota T (1992) Histological and biological evaluation of preoperative radiotherapy on T1N0 breast carcinomas (in Japanese with English abstract). Nippon Geka Gakkai Zasshi (J Jpn Surg Soc) 93:183–188
Kasumi F, Iwase T, Yoshimoto M, Watanabe S (1989) Breast conservative management in Japan — from the surgeon's point of view (in Japanese with English abstract). Nyugan no Rinsho (Jpn J Breast Cancer) 4:482–488
NIH (1990) Consensus on treatment of early stage breast cancer: Less surgery, more research. J Natl Cancer Inst 82:1180–1181
Elston CW (1987) Grading of invasive carcinoma of the breast. In: Page DL, Anderson TJ (eds) Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 300–311
Bonadonna G, Veronesi U, Brambilla C, Ferrari L, Luini A, Grecco M, Bartoli C, De Yoldi G, Zucali R, Rilke F, Andoreola S, Silvestrini R, Di Fronzo G, Valagussa S (1990) Primary chemotherapy to avoid mastectomy in tumors with diameters of 3 cm or more. J Natl Cancer Inst 82:1539–1545
Haffty BG, Fischer D, Rose M, Beinfield M, McKhann C (1991) Prognostic factors for local recurrence in the conservatively treated breast cancer patient: A cautious interpretation of the data. J Clin Oncol 9:997–1003
Gallagher WJ, Koerner FC, Wood WC (1989) Treatment of intraductal carcinoma with limited surgery: Long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol 7:376–380
Silverstein MJ, Waisman JR, Gierson ED (1991) Radiation therapy for intraductal carcinoma. Is it an equal alternative? Arch Surg 126:424–428
Holland R, Connolly JL, Gelmam R, Muravunac M, Hendriks JHCL, Verbeek ALM, Schnitt SJ, Silver B, Boyages J (1990) The presence of an extensive intraductal component following a limited excision correlates with prominent residual disease in the remainder of the breast. J Clin Oncol 8:113–118
Kurtz JM, Jacquemier J, Amalric R, Brandone H, Ayme Y, Hans D, Bressac C, Spitalier JM (1990) Breast-conserving therapy for macroscopically multiple cancers. Ann Surg 212:38–44
Fisher B, Bauer M, Margolese R (1985) Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 312:665–673
Stotter A, Atkinson EN, Fairston BA, Mcneese M, Oswald MJ, Balch CM (1990) Survival following locoregional recurrence after breast conservation therapy for cancer. Ann Surg 212:166–172
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fukutomi, T., Yamamoto, H., Nanasawa, T. et al. Prognostic factors for local recurrence in breast conservation therapy: Residual cancers after lumpectomy. Surg Today 23, 402–406 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309497
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309497